Comparative Peer Evaluation

Download Report

Transcript Comparative Peer Evaluation

Comparative Peer
Evaluation
Created by Debbie Owens
Presented at Klein Oak High School
Spring, Texas
Introduction



Hook?
Transitional Sentences?
Thesis statement
Does it answer the prompt?
Does it answer how or why? Answering
these questions is what makes it analytical
rather than just simply expository.
Promise Method of Writing
Thesis/Topic Sentences



Underline what you believe to be the thesis
statement and number the ideas found in
the thesis right above the idea.
Underline the topic sentences in each
paragraph
Underline the sentence that reminds the
reader of the premise in different words
found in the conclusion.
Thesis/Topic Sentences Continued




Now read each of these and look for the following
information:
Do the topic sentences match up with the thesis?
Are the topic sentences addressing the information in
the same order that the ideas were presented in the
thesis. Write the number that was assigned to the idea
in the thesis statement. Put this number in the margin
next to the topic sentence. Are the numbers in the
margin in the same order as in the thesis?
Does the concluding idea match thesis? Does it use
different words?
Comparative Language
Read through the paper backwards looking for words that
indicate compare/contrast and circle these words. Keep
in mind that you should have these words in your thesis
and throughout the paragraphs all the way to the end of
the paper.
Hit List Words, First/Second Person
References, and Contractions
Again read the paper backwards
 Now you are looking for hit list words, first
and second person references and
contractions. Place an X through these
words. They ABSOLUTELY do not belong
in academic writing!

Hit List Words
First and Second Person
References/Contractions

FIRST PERSON including possessive:




Singular: I, me, my, mine, etc.
Plural: We, us, ours, etc.
SECOND PERSON: Any form of you. This is an
academic essay. There is no time when you
should be addressing your reader directly.
CONTRACTIONS: The apostrophe indicates that
letters have been left out to abbreviate. Ex:
“Can’t” instead of “cannot”
To Be Verbs
Again read the paper backwards
 Now you are looking for to be verbs. You
should limit the use of to be verbs
because they usually indicate passive
sentence construction and also are weak
descriptors of action.

To Be Verbs Continued
Passive Sentence Construction:
Passive sentence construction is when the doer
of the action comes behind the action in the
sentence. This is confusing and destroys clarity.
Ex: The pizza was eaten by us.
Active is when the doer comes before the action
and yields clearer sentences. Notice what
happens to the to be verb.
Ex: We ate the pizza.

To Be Verbs
Reading for Content


The final task is to read for content. Your
peer evaluation sheet should reflect that
two people have read your paper for
content.
When reading for content, if the evaluator
questions a fact, grammar, punctuation, or
spelling error, s/he will circle what is
believed to be the error and place a
question mark in the margin.
Reading for Content continued


It is NOT the evaluators responsibility to
check for accuracy or to correct the error.
S/he may if feeling particularly helpful that
day, but it is NOT the evaluator’s job.
Rather it is the writer’s job to validate and
correct possible errors.
Content continued

The peer evaluator should be using a
different color marker or ink color from
those previously used. S/he should write
content and sign their signature. I will be
consulting with the evaluators and the
writer if inaccuracies make it to me.
Content Continued




You should check double-check their
organization, logic, and facts.
Is the paper skeletal? Does it need more
support?
Has the writer addressed all parts of the
prompt?
Is the paper a comparative? Does it use
compare/contrast language?
Logic
Loose Generalizations Create
Inaccuracies
Comparative Rubric
AP Core Points
Expanded Core Points
Good Job! 

Writers make sure you review your peer
evaluators’ comments before your next
paper.